Fulfill
Legal name: The Foodbank of Monmouth and Ocean Counties Inc D/b/a Fulfill
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 222622522
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Neptune, NJ, US
- Phone
- 732-918-2600
- Rating
- 88
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Human Services N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $43,316,113
- Expenses
- $39,897,500
- Assets
- $40,526,851
- Liabilities
- $3,758,015
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
22 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- TRIADA STAMPAS (PRESIDENT & CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- TRIADA STAMPAS (PRESIDENT & CEO): $255,669 total reported compensation
- ANDRE SOLOMON (VP OF FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION): $199,120 total reported compensation
- JONATHAN R ROWE (VP OF OPERATIONS): $179,250 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Fulfill wins the battle against hunger here in Monmouth & Ocean counties.
What it reported doing in 2024
Fulfill's community impact program offers vital services that aim to reduce hunger and improve the quality of life for individuals and families in need. These programs take a collective impact approach to solving hunger through food security initiatives and partnerships with local organizations to address the root causes of hunger. They also focus on fostering community engagement, promoting awareness, and empowering individuals through resources such as nutrition education, job training, and health services. For example, fulfill has developed a giving garden network of new and established gardens around monmouth and ocean counties at our partner pantries, soup kitchen, shelters and other agencies.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 69% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 81% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and some filed totals do not add up.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 83
- Transparency & Controls: 88
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 58
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 83.5%; rating input score 84
- Program expense ratio: 90.3%; rating input score 90
- Fundraising efficiency: $22.47 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 98.8%; rating input score 99; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 7.9%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.02; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.4%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 12.3% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 11 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 83.5% of revenue deployed · 90.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $36M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $256K · 22 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3.6M reported
- Consistency: 39 of 40 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 129 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 80 filed related-organization links
- Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
- People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.